A Cyber Norms Hypothetical: What If the USS John S. McCain Was Hacked?

There has been some wild speculation that a foreign nation might have hacked the navigation systems on the USS John S. McCain. Assuming it is plausible, what would be the implications for international law?

by David P. Fidler • August 23, 2017

The U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain is seen after a collision. Ahmad Masood/Reuters

The collision between the USS John S. McCain and an oil tanker in the Straits of Malacca has led some to speculate—without any evidence—that the tragedy could have been caused by a foreign nation that hacked the destroyer’s navigation system. Some of the speculation connected the McCain collision with the incident earlier this summer when a container ship struck the USS Fitzgerald off the Japanese coast in June. The Fitzgeraldinvestigation has turned up no indications of cyber foul play and identified other factors behind the collision, such as poor seamanship. The evaluation of the McCain incident will probably produce similar conclusions. However, the incidents provide an interesting hypothetical: how would international law treat the collisions if they were the result of state-sponsored cyber operations? And what would it mean for the cyber norms debate?

The Fitzgerald and McCain accidents resulted in significant damage to naval vessels and deaths and injuries to sailors. If done by a foreign nation, then hacking the navigation systems would be an illegal use of force under international law. As the Tallinn Manual 2.0 states, “consequences involving physical harm to individuals or property will in and of themselves qualify a cyber operation as a use of force.” Compromising navigational systems through cyber means clearly creates serious risks to ships and crew associated with collisions at sea, especially for ships, such as the McCain, sailing in heavily trafficked waters. Creating these risks satisfies the need for cause and effect to be closely related in acts considered uses of force under international law.

In this scenario, the targets were naval vessels not merchant ships, which means the hacking threatened and damaged core national security interests and military assets of the United States. In the peacetime circumstances of these incidents, no nation could argue that such a use of force had a plausible justification under international law. And every country knows the United States reserves the right to use force in self-defense if it is the victim of an illegal use of force.

3 comments

In war distraction is the key , a great way to enter a country , very interesting that it is at the same time as Asio chief is in the news visiting that nut in the philipines and laughing it up with him . It was a clapped out ship with lots of problems . They never tell the truth about anything . I think its a look here ” while they land there ” Philipines is my guess seeing as the west runs the Muslim terror racket .

“And every country knows the United States reserves the right to use force in self-defense if it is the victim of an illegal use of force.”

“To protect the USA from all threats FOREIGN and DOMESTIC” Lets say that the CFR has a different viewpoint..let us say that the CFR has a pecuniary interest in STARTING WW3.

Specifically..some of the CFR members are on the payroll of the weapons manufacturers, moreover they are also Satanists and deviants who take pleasure in causing death and pain to others.

We can then assume that these members have an empowered social circle who can manipulate information and who have been compromised morally and financially. After all we know these people successfully pulled off 9/11 in NYC.

In Europe we know that the empowered minor deities are confident enough to publically display Satanic beliefs as shown here, a bunch of willing people partaking in a Satanic ceremony..